Forum:Disambiguation pages
I've been considering the BioShock Wiki's system of disambiguation pages for several months, ever since BlueIsSupreme started revamping them. I didn't bring it up before because the process was already started, and redoing things would mean a lot of extra work. However, Halofan2417's recent edits made me think of it again. The issue is this: Although our way of doing disambiguation is mostly consistent, it is not the norm for most wikis. To make this clear: Current system on BioShock Wiki: ;Scenario #There are two or more articles with the same or similar name, e.g. Alpha Series. One of them is about the Big Daddy type, and one is an Audio Diary. #Both pages get moved to new names: Alpha Series (Big Daddy) and Alpha Series (Audio Diary) #'Alpha Series' is made into a disambiguation with links to the two articles. However, this is not the way it is done on other major wikis, such as Wikipedia. Wikipedia systems: :(You can read about their entire system and reasons here: Wikipedia:Disambiguation) ;Scenario 1 #There are one or more articles with the same or similar name. For example, Quartz. #One of the articles is clearly the most commonly used meaning of the word. 90% of the time when people search for the word "quartz" they expect to find information about a mineral. #This article (about the mineral) gets to keep its name. All other articles are moved to more specific names, like Quartz (band) or Quartz (graphics layer) #A disambiguation page is made at Quartz (disambiguation) with links to all of the articles. #The top of Quartz and a few other "Quartz" articles get the Template:About (which is the same as our Template:For) to either link to the disambiguation page or to another more related page. ;Scenario 2 #There are one or more articles with the same or similar name. For example, Rock. #There is more than one commonly used meaning for this term, and people are just as likely to be searching for one as the other. #Both articles are moved to more specific titles. (Rock (geology) and Rock music) #A disambiguation page is made at Rock with links to all the other aticles. #Many of the other articles get the Template:About placed at the top, or another similar template. Yada, yada, the point is... We need to consider the disadvantages of the way our wiki does disambiguation. ;Disadvantages of our system *A visitor searching for "Alpha Series" on this wiki or through Google will most likely be sent to the disambiguation page. This person, seeing a page devoid of content, is confused or bored and does not stick around to read the articles. Instead they leave to find other sites with the information they want. *If 90% of the time when a person searches for "Alpha Series" they want the Big Daddy type, why should we make them click through extra links to reach it? The Wikipedia Scenario 1 would be far more appropriate in this case. ;It's not rocket science... This recent confusion with Halofan2417's edits shows that we need to decide what system is best for our wiki and enforce it consistently. So, I ask all of you (who actually care and bothered to read the junk above): what should we do with the disambiguations of BioShock Wiki? Keep the current system, or switch to the Wikipedia way? Your thoughts? ~'Gardimuer' [[User talk:Gardimuer|{ ʈalk }]] 21:59, December 9, 2010 (UTC) :I'm in favor of changing the disambiguation system. The thing is, most of our disambiguations revolve only around two articles, with one being much more frequently visited than the other. The best thing here would be to use the "were you looking for...?" system from Wikipedia, and keep the number of disambiguation pages down to a minimum. --Willbachbakal 23:08, December 9, 2010 (UTC) I appreciate the idea, I see no reason why we should change. What we do is so utterly simple and serves one purpose, and if some hack comes here from Google and gets bored or lazy trying to click through one extra page which we provided for his or her clarification and convenience, then he or she can go get stepped on by a Big Daddy. Nothing (should) actually links to the disambiguation pages; you can only get there by typing it into the search bar (which is what disambiguations are meant to do... assist in searches), and all of the links in pages point to the actual referenced article. I fail to see the trouble. There, now that I have been objective, I can state that I hate the way Wikipedia does it. [[User:BlueIsSupreme|'BlueIsSupreme']] 11:27, December 15, 2010 (UTC) :But keep in mind that since Wikia axed the large navigation bar of Monaco, the main way people will find pages is by typing the title into the search bar. That means that more people will end up stumbling upon the disambiguation page by accident. Is there a reason why having a disambiguation page is better than just using on the tops of two pages with the same subject title? And why do you "objectively" hate the way Wikipedia does it? :P ~'Gardimuer' [[User talk:Gardimuer|{ ʈalk }]] 18:34, December 15, 2010 (UTC) ::I was objective before I stated that I hate Wikipedia's way of doing it. I don't think that it would be "by accident" to arrive there, as they are searching for a particular article, and the disambiguation refines that search. I did not necessarily say that the way we have it is better, only that I see no sufficient reason to change it, because it is so simple. ::[[User:BlueIsSupreme|'BlueIsSupreme']] 06:37, December 16, 2010 (UTC) :::So... you agree that our system is not as good, but you think it would be too much trouble to change it? ~'Gardimuer' [[User talk:Gardimuer|{ ʈalk }]] 05:06, December 19, 2010 (UTC) ::::In lesser words, sure. ::::[[User:BlueIsSupreme|'BlueIsSupreme']] 04:07, December 22, 2010 (UTC)